Crysis 3’s DLC Welcomes You Back To The Jungle

'I'm trying to camouflage myself as an adorable baby cloud. Is it working?'

Sooooo, Crysis 3 sure was a videogame. Its single-player had all the guns and all the graphics and all the armored land squids, but it still managed to fall well short of its predecessors’ remarkably intelligent brand of sci-fi hyperdumb. Oh, and there was multiplayer too  – because again, videogame. Unfortunately, glimmers of asymmetrical, suits-vs-skins potential were mostly paved over by a heaping gray load of blah. But hey, there’s still some hope, because Crytek’s injecting MP with a new dose of life via a DLC pack called The Lost Island. The mini-expansion leaves behind New York’s mostly concrete jungle in favor of the regular kind while also adding multiple new modes and maps. And thus, the series comes full circle in a really bizarre, potentially upsetting way. Details after the break.

The four new maps are all set on the titular island, which CELL wants to investigate because aliens or whatever. Anyway, they’re called Coastline, Creek, Crossing, and Ascent. Pictures of natural beauty, those – especially tropical Ascents, which I have heard are quite nice this time of year.

The two new modes, meanwhile, work like this:

“Frenzy adds a new dimension to deathmatch, a cycling weapon loadout every 60 seconds keeps tension high as players can only respawn during the next loadout change. An intensifying radar sweep keeps track of every move. Only the most skillful Hunter will win.”

“In Possession, players secure the single objective flag for the longest time in order to win, but once the flag is secured they become the hunted, permanently tagged in the enemies HUD. Possession also boasts a team based variant, where co-ordination and teamwork will ensure victory.”

So basically, these modes sound like they’re all about closing distance and getting to the action-packed point as soon as possible. Hm. Hello, Crysis’ old stomping grounds. Meet nu-Crysis’ love of brainless deathsplosions. Yes, yes, you two make pleasantries. Be polite, though. Oh, and don’t forget to curtsy.

But then, who knows? The maps could still be sprawling odes to the first game’s loftiest trees and lowliest turtles. I suppose we’ll just have to wait until Lost Island releases on June 4th to find out. In the meantime, here are some non-moving pictures – well-meaning men frozen in an unending dance of death – to maybe persuade you to buy a thing.


  1. phelix says:

    They’ll still manage to turn those jungles into corridors. Somehow.

    • xavdeman says:

      Crysis Warhead’s multiplayer (Crysis Wars) puts Crysis 2 and 3 to shame, ain’t no paid MP DLC gonna change that. Especially since Crysis Wars had custom maps, modes, weapons available to download for free, made by the community. Let’s not forget that it had vehicles (yes, actual driveable vehicles!) link to . It could have been one of the great mutiplayer shooter series akin to Battlefield and actually reminded one of Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising for example.
      I could go on about this latest DLC just being a symptom of consolify-ing the series, also seen in the low FOV, slow “speed” mode (just a glorified sprint button now), weak weapons, small maps, lack of destruction etc. but (hopefully) nobody will buy it anyway.

      • Superfasty says:

        So true, Crysis Wars was amazing fun, and awesome for LAN parties as you only needed one copy of the disc! And so easy and fun to make your own maps too.

      • Mabswer says:

        oh wow, why is everythign So.. so.. smeared, and those animations Dear Lord. Crysis Sure is showing its age Despite what ANYONE says .

  2. Megakoresh says:

    Paid MP DLC? No thanks.

  3. Keyrock says:

    Will this bring me to me shananananana knees? Knees?

  4. Fiddlestickz says:

    Oh yay now Crytek gives this pathetic paid MP DLC a shot, i am gonna pass this and you should too!

    Crysis 2,3 are cheap consolegames to me, Crytek has lost their touch, now they are just another corporate slave to EA.

    • Brun says:

      It’s not so much that they are a slave to EA but that they’re led by a childish anti-piracy crusader who would rather spite us PC-playing thieves than make good games.

      • lomaxgnome says:

        The original Crysis was based on a fallacy, that there are a large number of PC gamers that spend thousands of dollars on high end video cards in order to play the hottest new game. Yes, it was pirated a lot, mostly because *no one thought they could run it* But of course, instead of seeing the reality of how tiny the market they were trying to capture was, they just screamed “OMG PC PIRACY” and ran away to console land, never to return. Which is a shame in a way, as the tech was pretty neat, but the reality was, it was programmed lazily and horribly optimized, because they wanted to be the uber-graphics game.

        • fish99 says:

          I think you’ll find other less demanding games released around that time were pirated just as much.

  5. Aysir says:

    This was EAP. As in it’s Crytek’s show. Marketing and distribution were EA’s fault sure – but the rest is on Yerli.

  6. ResonanceCascade says:

    I’ll at least say this: Crysis 3 had its moments. There were glimpses of past glory. Definitely not the best 50 I ever spent though.

    • subedii says:

      Crysis 1 still remains my favourite, and certainly one of my favourite games of all time.

      Crysis 2 had its good moments, the key thing is: You had to treat the game as Halo, not Crysis. Once you’re over that hurdle it’s a pretty good Halo game. But seriously, the people who would constantly try to defend it saying “It plays just like Crysis 1, you’re just being biased” and comments to that effect? Yeah I’m just going to say that’s flat out untrue, or only true in the vague sense of “It’s an FPS and doesn’t take place solely in corridors”.

      Crysis 3? Yeah I also regret picking it up for a variety of reasons that would take forever to get into, but in general it felt like most aspects of it weren’t fully thought through in their implementation.

      • Brun says:

        Crysis 1 still remains my favourite, and certainly one of my favourite games of all time.

        Indeed, Crysis 1 was WAY ahead of its time (too far ahead really, given the hardware required to run it at high settings). It was amusing watching the tech demo for CoD: Ghosts and realizing that every single “next-gen feature” they touted was present in Crysis way back in 2007 (well, except for dogs).

        • TT says:

          Technically Crysis 1 was/ is a marvel but they never reached Far Cry level as a game.

          • fish99 says:

            They’re both fine games, but I think I slightly preferred the gameplay in Crysis though due to the stealth.

  7. 2late2die says:

    It’s sad to see how far the series have fallen. I loved Crysis, I enjoyed Crysis 2 but felt it was a somewhat dumbed down version of the first, and as for Crysis 3 – I’m completely uninterested. It’s not even a matter of being mad at the developers for further dumbing it down (TBH I don’t even know if that’s the case) I just don’t care. It somehow has lost its magic and its uniqueness, to me it seems like just another sci-fi shooter – been there, done that.

  8. Mctittles says:

    Will this have the large areas with fully destructible environments like Crysis 1?

  9. Astartes says:

    Hey, let’s make DLC to a multiplayer no one cares about that harkens back to a time when our games were actually good!

  10. AnotherGamingEnglishman says:

    I always can’t help but feel there’s quite a vivid rose tint to how people tend to look back at Crysis. Too often do I see people seemingly implying it was some kind of sprawling, free-form sandbox game… it wasn’t.

    It was a technical marvel, it was a heck of a lot of fun, and sure the stifling direction the sequels took was undeniably lamentable. But in essence, Crysis 3, Crysis 2, and Crysis are all just linear progressions between locations and set-pieces.

    Crysis just had much, much wider, much greener corridors.

    Granted though, neither of the sequels came close to providing that same sense of planning an attack on an unsuspecting base, putting to use a myriad of options at your disposal.

    • subedii says:

      Yes yes, heard it all before. All that love you have for Crysis 1 is merely rose tinted glasses, and it was just as much a “corridor shooter” as all the other modern games.

      You’ll forgive me for not rolling with that line.

      Frankly, if Crysis was a corridor shooter, then so was freaking Stalker. Corridor shooter has a very specific meaning in that it connotes an extreme of linearity without providing the player options to choose their approach, the effect of being on-rails. Or on occasion, having the choice between 2 or 3 rails. The angle so often taken that it’s a ‘matter of degrees’ simply does not fly with me here. Half-Life 2 is a corridor shooter to a large extent (and I love that game). CoD is ridiculous example of a corridor shooter. Saying Crysis 1 is is just stretching ‘matter of degrees’ to breaking point by suggesting that merely having centralised objectives and discrete levels is the same thing.

      There was linearity, but only to the extent of needing to reach objectives and tasks, and the fact that it was levels based.. It wasn’t OPEN WORLD but then nobody ever claimed it was. The levels were massive and beyond that you had fairly exceptional freedom in approaching your tasks, to the extent of assaulting them from most viable angles and more real gameplay possibilities than most open world games ever actually provide to you (Just Cause 2 comes to mind).

      Getting back to “rose tinted glasses”, when I first played the Crysis SP demo, I must have played it through maybe 6 or so times before I had the opportunity to buy it. In those times each playthrough was almost completely different in approach. In most other FPS’s, you’re expected to play the action bubbles. In Crysis merely sniping a boat and bypassing huge swathes of the level is just one more accepted method of play, one that the game didn’t punish or reward you for, it just allowed you to approach as you saw fit.

      It’s something I truly loved about Crysis 1, and it’s something sorely and evidently lacking in either its sequels, or frankly, most other FPS’s that you’d care to mention. “Rose tinted glasses” don’t come into it. None of the sequels ever had levels like that (not even the mooted final level of Crysis 3, and I can go into why if you want). They never had the freedom of approach of Relic. They never had levels even close to on par with the exceptional freeform play of “Assault” (in terms of design that is a level I happily hold, to this day, as one of my favourite FPS levels of all time).

      I could, and in the past, have written pages about just what made Crysis 1 so unique in its gameplay model, and it’s something the sequels simply did not capitalise on, and went in different directions. For Crysis 2 this wasn’t so much bad as different, but it also ended up with a game that was saddled with some of the mechanics of Crysis 1 where they no longer worked properly in a gameplay context (Cloaking in particular comes to mind, the nature of the gameplay didn’t adapt to it and it ended up far too powerful and a gameplay killer when some alterations might have made it mesh better). And Crysis 3 was, well a mish-mash trying to appeal to both camps without fully understanding what exactly worked in either context.

      So yeah, even if you want to maintain it’s all corridor shooters, whatever. But I’m just going to flat out reject the notion of rose tinted glasses. I bought Crysis 3 on launch because I wanted to love it. I wanted to believe it was a return to series form like the reviewers gushed (as they always do). Instead all it did was cement to me the idea that the devs didn’t really have a full grasp on what they wanted to do with the gameplay design, and the game suffered as a result.

      • ResonanceCascade says:

        Thank you for saying that far more coherently than I’ve ever been able to. Crysis 1 was a smart (in terms of gameplay), interesting game with a ton to offer. It was anything but a generic corridor shooter.

      • oceanclub says:

        +1. I loved Crysis 1 & expansion. After 2 attempts, gave up in Crysis 2. Despite superficial similarities, very different games.

      • AnotherGamingEnglishman says:

        You just spent nearly 700 words without actually successfully refuting my point. I just got back from the pub, I’m hardly in the mood to go such an extent that you have… but to be honest, the most damning point you managed to make was that you can take a boat down that long linear path. Great, cool, hell, that’s awesome even… boats… it’s still a linear path.

        Oh okay, fine, I agree, the stealth mechanics were certainly more balanced in the larger environments of the first game compared to the smaller of the sequels. I mean, guess what, I can vainly try to bolster my arguments with claims of writing competency too! (aside from the fact that I’m too fond of commas). I wrote a review in which actually referred to Crysis 3 as an accidental stealth game, hey, I can put words in front of other words!

        I can tell that you have a particular love for Crysis, and your hackles are certainly in a raised position. I recently played through Crysis again, just to check whether my incredibly fond memories were really as I justified as I thought they were, and I found the game not to be what I thought I remembered. I felt it sat awkwardly halfway between a typical linear shooter, and sandbox game: It had sandbox characteristics without genuine freedom, and linear progression without refined coherence.

        Does the game provide options? Sure! Are the sequels far more limited? Hell yeah!… But what were those options? Oh, shoot dudes from stealth, or shoot dudes overtly, or shoot dudes whilst punching down tin huts, or shoot dudes whilst running really fast, or shoot dudes from close range, or shoot dudes from afar.. Options!

        I certainly do not deny that the direction the sequels went in was unfortunate, and sure, perhaps Crysis was remarkable for its time, but the sheer amount of condemnation thrown at contemporary games in comparison to the “almighty pinnacle of gaming perfection” that Crysis apparently was, always seems a little excessive.

        • kyrieee says:

          Your point was silly to begin with. “Just” having wider corridors isn’t something you can throw under the rug. The way you approach and navigate through a space is at least, or more important as the way you directly deal with enemies. Crysis 1 did have vastly more options because of how open the levels were. You make it sound like level design doesn’t matter because in the end you just shoot guys. Saying it’s still technically a linear path is such a pointless observation.

        • subedii says:

          Basically what Kyriee said. Taking out the core differentiating elements of a title and saying it’s the same as others is going to be problematic if there’s going to be any real discussion of the game. Which is why it’s necessary to go into detail on them.

          Does the game provide options? Sure! Are the sequels far more limited? Hell yeah!… But what were those options? Oh, shoot dudes from stealth, or shoot dudes overtly, or shoot dudes whilst punching down tin huts, or shoot dudes whilst running really fast, or shoot dudes from close range, or shoot dudes from afar.. Options!

          This, combined with your earlier comment about “taking a linear boat path” (actually, I was referring to the first level. But the context was that whilst they crafted an entire series of action bubbles and encounters, the gameplay design in general didn’t care if you bypassed most of them) pretty well illustrate my point actually. Because you’re basically boiling all actions in an FPS down to “shoot dudes”. In the context of that statement, all FPS’s are effectively the same. I cannot use the above statements to differentiate anything from CoD to Quake to Half-Life to Bioshock. Ultimately it’s still an FPS.

          The core of the game is the shooting. But reduction purely to the fact of shooting doesn’t really say anything about how this title works differently from other titles, and as a result feels different to play. I genuinely enjoy Half-Life. I never really enjoyed CoD. On the face of it they’re a very similar style of game but unless we get into specifics of gameplay and implementation there’s no way to actually discuss what makes one work where the other doesn’t. Likewise whenn saying that Crysis 1, 2 and are “in essence” linear and the same style. To the extent that it’s true it also becomes such a vague interpretation that you can’t really say anything about why the first worked where the other two didn’t, and how they worked differently.

          Oh, for the record, I actually had most fun in Crysis 1 on “no-cloak” stealth runs, where I avoided casualties as much as possible. Believe me when I say this does not work at all in the sequels.

          I’m flattered you actually bothered to put that through a word counter solely to make comments on its length. I can’t say in particular I was trying to prove anything about writing (believe me, I would have said if I felt this was something I had a masterful approach to), merely trying to put things across.

          But hey, maybe I should stop words putting front in other of each.

  11. McTerry says:

    No thanks. No more games from Crytek, they just lost another customer now.

  12. PsychoWedge says:

    After the original Far Cry hit the shelves in 2004 I always got the impression that Yerli and his dudes think of themselves as some form of the German id Software… I mean they got a lot of praise for their technical know-how here in Germany but you know, id they are very much not. xD

  13. jimmydean239 says:

    TBH, I don’t even know why there’s so much nostalgia for the original game. It was technically stunning, that I agree, but it ran like a one legged horse at the time of release and in the last couple of years when I’ve actually been able to play it as intended, I’ve realised it was a fairly dull game. Not at all near the best games of its type in my opinion, even COD surpasses it in the multiplayer stakes, and that’s saying a lot.

  14. SuicideKing says:

    Master Chief called, he wants his gravity hammer back.